SUNSET: 
25Ongoing efforts to streamline the federal workforce, with layoffs and funding cuts in the works, has already impacted scientists.
The ongoing steps taken by President Donald Trump’s administration to transform and reduce in size the federal workforce is already impacting the space science and exploration community, with more changes head.
The shake-up includes the President Trump-okayed establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an advisory group to streamline the federal government. Billionaire Elon Musk, SpaceX founder and CEO of Tesla, is heading the controversial and chaotic DOGE undertaking, with buyouts, layoffs, and firings to attain objectives.
NASA’s Acting Administrator, Janet Petro, has requested space agency employees “to lean into this opportunity” as DOGE seeks to maximize efficiencies. She is a former director of NASA’s John F. Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
“I know the recent executive orders and subsequent guidance are weighing on many of you,” Petro explained in a February 7th update to NASA employees. “Speculation from all areas has contributed to uncertainty and concern, and the volume of updates can feel overwhelming.” Indeed, morale within the space agency is on a downward trajectory, per several NASA officials contacted by Sky & Telescope who wish to remain anonymous.
Unprecedented Challenges
At present there are few enacted changes to NASA or NSF. NASA was braced for layoffs but received an eleventh-hour reprieve, albeit perhaps a temporary one. Meanwhile, NSF remains under a short-term continuing resolution that expires on March 14th, but is proactively cutting some programs due to budgetary uncertainty, such as downsizing the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) programs.
What’s still to come looms large.
A matter of concern is upcoming debate and passage (or not) of the Continuing Resolution for Fiscal Year 2025 funding. (The federal fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 of one calendar year to Sept. 30 of the next year.) Then there’s President Trump’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2026. There are no specific details on these as yet; some details may come tonight, when President Trump delivers a joint congressional address, blueprinting his plans for 2025.
The American space science community writ large — at NASA, NSF, and elsewhere — is facing an “unprecedented set of challenges” in 2025, says Keith Cowing. He is the editor and watchdog webmaster of NASA Watch, an online publication focused on free and uncensored exchange of information on space policy and NASA operations.
“Drastic reductions in government personnel, restrictions on diversity and inclusion programs, program and mission cancellations, and shrinking budgets will constrain how we study and explore the universe,” he adds. “Given the current political winds, this may persist for some time.”
As such, senses Cowing, the space science community will be called upon to get more creative in terms of what they study and how they generate the resources to conduct those studies. His bottom line: “It is going to be rough.”
“Indiscriminate Cutting”
The big picture of potential DOGE impacts on NASA and NSF are bleak, says Amanda Hendrix, deputy chief executive officer and senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute, based in Tucson, Arizona.
“Indiscriminate cutting of the NASA and NSF workforce will damage U.S. leadership and competitiveness in space missions and space science,” Hendrix tells Sky and Telescope. “We have a unique workforce that is not easily replaced.”
Hendrix says that cutting the NSF and NASA workforce impacts the entire country, not only civil servants and NASA centers. All of the university, nonprofit, and commercial partners are adversely affected as well, she says, with damage done in every single state of the U.S.
More widely, there are international partners and commitments, missions in progress and in the pipeline, and a host of scientific priorities to address. “These cannot be abandoned or given short shrift,” Hendrix adds.
Another ramification is the impact on society as a whole. “There's a lot of research that people may not realize is done by NSF and NASA scientists that affects our day-to-day lives,” says Hendrix. That research affects GPS apps on your phone, space weather interruptions of commercial satellites, as well as tracking of asteroids, some of which could become future threats to Earth.
“And don't forget the next generations of engineers and space scientists that look to NASA and NSF for inspiration! These cuts could impact our country for generations,” she concludes.
Community Feedback Shut Down
Another early casualty of President Trump’s actions are NASA’s Analysis and Assessment Groups. These are community-organized groups that provide feedback (but not formal recommendations) into NASA’s Planetary Science Division.
“We, the assessment groups, are still shut down, pending amendment of our Terms of Reference to comply as NASA directs,” says planetary scientist Noam Izenberg (Johns Hopkins University), who chairs the Venus Exploration Analysis Group. “We’ve all been working on the documents but have no timeline yet as to when we may be reactivated.”
Community impacts so far, Izenberg reports, have been cancellation of the Mercury Exploration Analysis Group as well as the next meeting for the outer planets. He adds that venues for conveying community priorities, information, and feedback to NASA leadership is, at present, cut off. Various planned AG town hall gatherings at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference being held March 10–14 in The Woodlands, Texas, are likewise canceled.
Taking off his VEXAG hat, and speaking personally — and not representing his institution — Izenberg emphasizes, “None of this is great for the planetary science and technology communities. The full consequences beyond lost opportunities for communication, collaboration, and networking with NASA, with national partnerships, and international colleagues are still unknown.”
Comments
Andrew James
March 4, 2025 at 5:36 pm
I do think there are other problems because they greatly damage the interrelationships with other countries who cooperatively work to support US space endeavours. The US is driving towards isolationist policies, which the international community is being forced away from and developing anti-US trust.
One of the possible impacts will be with the Deep Space Network with radio telescopes in Madrid, Spain and Canberra, Australia - or even SCaN Lunar Support or NASA’s Near Space Network. These supply critical data and allow communication to its missions, including the Artemis missions to the Moon. Data rely on a world network because the US can only cover a portion of the sky when it is above the horizon.
As NASA says: “Each of the three Deep Space Network sites has multiple large antennas and is designed to enable continuous radio communication between several spacecraft and Earth. All three complexes consist of at least four antenna stations, each equipped with large, parabolic dish antennas and ultra-sensitive receiving systems capable of detecting incredibly faint radio signals from distant spacecraft. [1]
NASA ultimately relies on international cooperation so it can continue to communicate with its missions, and if Trump continues his present path, such support may stopped in retribution. E.g. Imposing unilateral tariffs on other countries.
If America keeps along this path, it will eventually only damage itself. Already starting are serious grumblings and worry about how other countries are seemingly becoming badly treated.
Worse, removing trained technicians and personnel reduces the ability to improve the network. Cutting personnel in America will also mean cutting personnel in other countries, who assist in monitoring that network and often have their salaries paid by that foreign country.
The consequences for the future might be dire, as it will affect future exploration and slow down our endeavours in space. Away around this would be improved satellite communications in orbit, but this will greatly add to the deficit, which the President aims to reduce.
Either way, everyone loses.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Anthony Barreiro
March 6, 2025 at 8:08 pm
On Friday March 7, 2025 there will be demonstrations to "Stand Up for Science!" in Washington DC and around the United States.
http://www.standupforscience2025.org
My sign says, "Firing meteorologists won't stop climate change." Back side: "Send Elon to Mars."
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
March 7, 2025 at 4:24 pm
Thanks for pointing this out. America is not the only place that is worried about this. It has a cascading affect on other countries, as science works collectively across borders and relies on cooperation between nations to achieve our scientific goals for the sake of humanity.
The dystopian view of the current US government is clearly blind to the realities of what faces all of us. One of the biggest worries is that mask has little interest in ground based astronomy, and already thinks the only place to do it is in space. He couldn't care less about the assets we already use nor the cooperation between other countries. His Starlink satellites are a testament to his blatant attitude.
It will be interesting to see in the coming weeks what's going to happen within the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (Already there were rumblings against the data they produce.)
As a baseline, the true number of astronomers in the US across government and industry can be found under: "Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2023" here [a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes192011.htm">1. In May 2023, there were 2,080 astronomers employed in the US.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
March 7, 2025 at 4:41 pm
Oops! The link is : Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2023" for astronomers employed in the US.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
March 7, 2025 at 4:38 pm
There is also a very interesting article about the scientific areas such as physics and astronomy. This is under the 'Occupational Outlook Handbook' by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics entitled: "What Physicists and Astronomers Do" here: 1.
This shows the much broader base of employment of astronomers no only in the US, but across the world. Those unaware of our scientific contributions perhaps should take heed before making any drastic deep cuts into their employed numbers. People are assets, not just statistical numbers to play with.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Ze De Boni
March 8, 2025 at 5:38 pm
Dear Andrew,
We are used to be pleased with your frequent wise comments here. Now, with these posts, you just climbed the highest level of my admiration. I am not an astronomer, nor American and nor even do I work as a scientist. But I must congratulate you for exposing yourself openly in defense of the most precious achievement of humanity.
Thank you, long live your writing.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Enrico the Great
March 10, 2025 at 2:13 pm
OK----if it were TOTALLY up to me NASA would have a much bigger budget. BUT---there IS the reality that NASA has not been terribly innovative recently. After the NIXON cuts----it seems to have no large natural constituency on EITHER LEFT OR RIGHT. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Obama, Trump, Biden, and Trump have paid lip service---but after the Shuttle----chaos. Piggybacking on the Russians, Terrible coverage in ALL media. While in Cislunar space the private sector has taken up part of the slack--more COULD be done. NASA HAS been much better at interplanetary unmanned exploration---but the unmanned program is RATHER BLAH right now. On top of that--the West, meaning for our purposes here, Anglo and Latin America, Western Europe and the Non-Russian Nations of Eastern Europe are at a socio-political and cultural inflection point. The structure of government is being questioned and revised, its impact on the day-to-day life of the citizen, the power of unelected technocrats, the distancing of the actual operations of governments from their constitutional norms, the use to which taxes are put, and HOW EFFICIENTLY That is being done are ALL under question and possible revision.
Everywhere people are rather dissatisfied with government as it is. Fine---that is not a bad thing, But we all want to protect our own turf even as we hail the loss of the other guy's. We also have the problem of "Science" itself having been weaponized by both sides---in the hands of politicians---and even MORE so of activists---it has become a cudgel to use on the other guy. Emotion is wrapped in science often. Or made to sound "sciency". We can all come up with problems which are real---but for which impractical solutions have been proposed. I won't go into those because my purpose is not polemical--or even necessarily to promote my own ideological or political preferences. I mentioned the Presidents above not to disrespect ANY of them, just to say that ALL of them could have done better for space activities and exploration. Not a comment on their attitudes or actions regarding any other issue. Recall, I said NASA had no "LARGE" natural constituency, but it DOES have us, and I would wager that "we" on OTHER issues come from Left, Right, AND Center. We might disagree on a slew of issues, and I doubt any of us are single issue voters. So, we voted for whom we voted, and whomsoever that was, I am not going to trash anyone. But NASA like the rest of the government MUST go through this process. Like EVERY other agency. A special carve out would serve only to turn off voters---and even, make them hostile.
Which brings up the question of advocacy. I am all for it---but I like the IDA (International Dark Sky) Association) type approach. NOT the in your face, confrontational approach that so many activists fall back on. That only again produces backlash. In the case of NASA, we should use arguments based on National Prestige, and security, as well as the economic benefits of scientific research. But trashing personalities or the electoral choices of the people will NOT work. NASA will most likely become smaller---we must ensure that it becomes more efficient and innovative
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
March 11, 2025 at 5:09 am
Wow! Can you get more parochial! What you say here is an I ideological take on Science who has no idea what science is about or how it works. If this is how America is going to behave, then so be it. If there was ever sentiment about foreign countries, this comment exceeds all credulity. So be it. Fool.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Enrico the Great
March 11, 2025 at 4:54 pm
Since I did NOT dispute anything, you said, but merely attempted to provide context, I am rather perplexed to be referred to as a "fool". I grew up in East Harlem---I COULD respond with some colorful ripostes---but I won't. I will write this off simply as a hastily written reaction---and a rare slip up in moderation by the site. Have a great day.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
March 11, 2025 at 8:18 pm
You actually said: "Everywhere people are rather dissatisfied with government as it is. Fine---that is not a bad thing, But we all want to protect our own turf even as we hail the loss of the other guy's." &
"So, we voted for whom we voted, and whomsoever that was, I am not going to trash anyone."
Talk about a 'Bull in a China shop'! Science, especially astronomy, is a collaborative effort. In this regard, there is no 'turf' to protect!
The general feeling in my country is so disgusted with the way we are being treated, that we would prefer to trade somewhere else and just not buy any American products. Period.
The second quote here is even more egregious. I didn't vote for anyone because your country is far away from my jurisdiction. Your collective decision has your 'Head of State' is just trashing everyone else beyond his shores!
This is why your sentiments are foolish, because you don't really understand the repercussions of your own country's unfettered actions. (Your internal politics are no interest to me, but damaging scientific collaboration annoys me no end.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Enrico the Great
March 12, 2025 at 5:49 pm
The first quote refers to political behavior between groups, factions etc. especially when jockeying for advantage. We see this WITHIN and between organizations---of all sizes. From your Neiborhood bowling league, all the way through to the State (that "Leviathan" that Hobbes wrote about so long ago. So it would seem that agencies and departments of the Federal Government will behave accordingly. Especially now since the people have demanded accountability from ALL agencies of the Federal Government. I would hope that NASA comes out of this processed unscathed-----but reality will most likely bite us on the posterior and waste and inefficiencies will be found. In that case I would that they would correct without damage to the mission of NASA. I do not work for NASA, but being rather keen on Astronomy, and Space Exploration, I could consider NASA my turf---so I'd rather any "cuts" affect say the Dept. of the Interior, rather than NASA---no special animosity to the folks at Interior but NASA is of more immediate interest to me. BUT political realities are just that realities. NASA, barring a minor miracle will most likely have to go through its ordeal. Hopefully the cuts will indeed be fat and not muscle. A glimmer of optimism presents itself in the fact that in the abstract the idea of space exploration polls well. The REAL crisis, with which we are still dealing with, stems from the post-Apollo cuts initiated by President Nixon. That caused a lack of imagination in our space Program, that simply has not been dissipated in 50+ years. Frankly, we've been out to lunch spacewise SINCE APOLLO 17 returned from the Taurus-Littrow Valley. NASA being asked to operate efficiently with OUR money pales into insignificance in comparison to that loss of imagination which Eisenhauer, Kennedy, and even Johnson had. (NASA was formed from NACA during the Eisenhauer Administration.) THat lack of imagination is due to poor media coverage accross ALL platforms, including the popular science and astronomy press. Sky and Telescope's coverage of manned and unmanned mission in the 1960s was quite superior to its present-day coverage of say the Juno mission, or even New Horizons. (Sorry S&T, but friends sometimes can be the toughest critics). In any event I merely pointed out that NASA, has to operate in a real-world political environment, like any other agency of a government ultimately answerable to the electorate. Supercilious attitudes will not help. Advice from one fool ---to another Pece Out Will not commnicate further on this topic. Its getting noisome.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Enrico the Great
March 12, 2025 at 5:53 pm
loss of imagination which Eisenhauer, Kennedy, and even Johnson had. Awkwardly phrased---I meant to say that Eisenhauer, Kennedy and Johnson had that imagination about pursuing space exploration that has been NOT possessed by ANY subsequent President.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
March 14, 2025 at 1:17 am
Wow! "Supercilious attitudes will not help."
See my comments below.
e.g. "Australian researchers were sent a "show cause" notice asking them to justify their funding, along with a questionnaire grilling them on a host of issues — including their institution's links with China and the Trump administration's edicts recognising only two sexes."
Yet you say.. "But we all want to protect our own turf even as we hail the loss of the other guy's."
Is this: "the real-world political environment?" now?
Really.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Ze De Boni
March 13, 2025 at 9:00 am
Just by reading the poster name I expected what finally got unfolded. We cannot be serious at someone who calls themselves "The Great", whether a top politician or a casual commenter on a scientific website. We can't pay so much attention to those that hide their real name when we discuss scientific subjects.
Their first paragraph was enough for me to correlate them with people writing and commenting on several sites dedicated to space exploration, who are clearly working for SpaceX and its owner interest. They don't fool me, it's easy to notice who's their boss and that their roots are far beyond East Harlem. Now it seems they are coming to pollute our polite environment. That should be expected, regarding the current attack to all liberal institutions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
March 14, 2025 at 12:21 am
As I earlier said, foreign countries are being dragged into this crises. In the ABC News site (Australia) article here: Australian researchers accuse Trump administration of foreign interference by Stephen Dziedzic (14 March 2025) says;
"A controversy is brewing in higher education with Australian researchers and unions accusing the Trump administration of foreign interference.
Under Trump, the US government has made deep cuts to research funding, which has hit Australian scientists and academics working on projects jointly funded by American agencies.
Last week some of those Australian researchers were sent a "show cause" notice asking them to justify their funding, along with a questionnaire grilling them on a host of issues — including their institution's links with China and the Trump administration's edicts recognising only two sexes.
The Group of Eight — which represents Australia's largest universities — said the US has now "suspended or terminated research grants with six of the eight member universities" and sent researchers a "number of questions [which] relate to the priorities of the Trump government"."
Wow! Just wow! Alarm bells. If this is how so-called liberty and freedom-loving USA, a loyal friend of Australia for over 70 years, is now treating its allies and strategic partners, then what's next?
Note 1: Your President is actually interfering with the moral and ethical standards of another country, and imposing their own values on other people. Alison Barnes, a spokesman for the Australian universities, rightly says: "Donald Trump's ... agenda is racist, transphobic and misogynistic. The idea of research funding being tied to any of those values is sickening". What has this to do anything with scientific research, like astronomy and physics?
Note 2: My fellow countrymen presently are absolutely furious. I've never seen such a hostile reaction as what has occurred just in the last week. My country has a surplus with the US, where we import more of your goods and resources then we export to you. And yet, the President, is still going to whack on the 25% tariff on steel and aluminium - and possibly other things. Our own Government will not be adding reciprocal tariffs, because most of our economists realise it's going to do more damage to the US than Australia. From the reaction of the populous, you're realise one thing, don't buy anything from America. Period. (I went into a grocery store today to buy some oranges. Because oranges are out of season, they sell US ones. The shopkeeper said when I asked them where the oranges were, he said that we took them off the shelf and send them back to the supplier. He said he will not be selling any American products until the tariffs were lifted. That's the depth of feeling here. You ought to know!)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
March 14, 2025 at 12:39 am
This may be off topic, and I understand it may be deleted, but it has to be said. Your fifth president, John Quincy Adams (1767 to 1845) made a speech on 4 July 1821 on your Independence Day. It talks about American policy and reflects on the state of the world as well as how America behaves in the world. He famously describes that America (She) does not: "…goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy,”
John Quincy Adams says in the speech, which struck me very hard of the reality of now 2025.
"She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign Independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brow would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of Freedom and Independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an Imperial Diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”
How far have we fallen?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Enrico the Great
March 14, 2025 at 5:24 pm
Drawing me back im , eh? The quote from John Quincy Adams is well known----as is Washington's Farewell Address. Both eloquent---and both in the rhetorical toolkit of every American Isolationist. Including the current crop. That isolationism ended on December 7th, 1941. But I digress. I am not going to write a treatise on U.S. foreign, military or domestic policy, AND I did not here advocate for or against the Big Bad Orange Man. I just stated what should be obvious. The ENTIRE Federal Government is undergoing a major audit and overhaul. NASA is an agency pf that government. roughly 75-80% of the people of the USA approve of this. That number would by definition include many who did NOT vote for Trump. That is as close to unanimity in American public opinion as one usually gets. IN short----it is OUR money. WE decide what is done with it---and to whom it is doled out. Current actions may be disruptive---and even unwise (PERSONALLY, I'd probably leave NASA alone---and even increase its budget by 5 or 6 times-----at least--but I am just ONE person. with one vote). NASA will go through its ordeal like every other agency. It is OUR government we are merely holding it accountable. There may even be a silver lining---a more efficient NASA may just get back some of its old moxie. As far as the blocking research grants to Australian Universities, well again. Wise or unwise as these actions may be---again it is OUR money. unless the benefit to the USA is demonstrable, the taxpayers may be inclined to wonder why their taxes are being used abroad. Guess we inherited that implied stinginess from our common Anglo-Saxon mother country eh Mr. James? The other political questions I will NOT address. A discussion of the supposed racism, misogyny etc. of the Big Bad Orange Man is outside the scope, since I really only wanted to provide context for the happenings at NASA. Remember I am NOT advocating for or against any politician here---just the right of the American People to demand oversight over the expenditures of our government.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
March 14, 2025 at 6:18 pm
You've got to be kidding me! There is one crazy point of view here.
Saying: "As far as the blocking research grants to Australian Universities, well again. Wise or unwise as these actions may be---again it is OUR money. unless the benefit to the USA is demonstrable, the taxpayers may be inclined to wonder why their taxes are being used abroad." is nuts.
You assume all the funding is one way, but the Australian universities working in collaboration with the US and most of the time paying in the collaboration as well – most of the time 50-50. E.g. Australian tax payers are paying as well! They do this research together that benefits both countries, or to the benefits of all humankind.
When it comes to collaboration it extends much further. America uses our country, like US troops in our country, and it's own intelligence services. As early as said in the thread of this topic, you also have telecommunications with deep space interplanetary spacecraft in the Solar System.
You claim somehow: "...just the right of the American People to demand oversight over the expenditures of our government." But you can't seem to agree that you sign formal agreements to do one thing, then punish and exploit the other country because some administration thinks they've got the right to do that!
So Adam's "She [America] might become the dictatress of the world." is now an actuality. In future, we'll just go somewhere else. e.g. She can't be trusted to be country because she has honour.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
March 14, 2025 at 6:21 pm
Oops! "So Adam's "She [America] might become the dictatress of the world." is now an actuality. In future, we'll just go somewhere else. e.g. She can't be trusted to be country because she has NO honour.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
March 15, 2025 at 2:49 am
"The questionnaire, issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and seen by Reuters, asked Australian researchers questions such as: "Can you confirm that this is no DEI project (sic) or DEI elements of the project?" and "Does this project take appropriate measures to protect women and to defend against gender ideology?"
It also asked them to rank their projects on a scale from 1-5 based on how it promoted U.S. interests such as preventing illegal immigration, limiting the flow of illicit drugs into the country, "combatting Christian prosecution" and strengthening U.S. supply chains." See: Trump’s crackdown triggers funding freeze for Australia’s top universities.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
March 15, 2025 at 2:17 am
Evidence is here:
Education : "Australia universities face Trump funding cuts."
"Researchers asked to comply with U.S. agenda, as health, defense studies threatened."
See: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Education/Australia-universities-face-Trump-funding-cuts
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
March 24, 2025 at 12:48 am
The silence here is deafening. It's amazing when you tell the truth that suddenly the maddening critics go silent. There seems a bizarre idea in American's minds that it is America against the rest of the world, but many countries do act cooperatively to achieve common goals. Astronomy is not propped up by the United States of America, but in fact is commonly supported by nearly every country in the world. This is not to say that the United States doesn't contribute to specialised astronomical work, like double stars in the US Naval Observatory in Washington. Even Russia has it specialised astronomical work, which maintains variable stars, etc at the Sternberg Astronomical Institute. The astronomical community shares at work with others, and does things to promote the science together. The world works like a link in the chain when it comes to astronomy, and if the bureaucracy in the US government gets its way, it will break one of the major links and shatter the chain. There is more at stake here than monitory gain, and it's about prestige of a once proud nation. It's sad when people cannot see past their own self interest. Pity.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Enrico the Great
March 24, 2025 at 12:50 pm
Mr. James. I have not further replied because I feel that I have explained my point more than sufficiently. Furthermore, I have NOT disputed the desirability of international scientific co-operation. etc. I have merely provided context for what is going on presently. WE are holding OUR government accountable for the amount and purpose o its expenditure of funds---WHICH ULTIMATELY COME OUT OF OUR PAYCHECKS. I just hope that the decisions made as a result are wise ones---as humans are not perfect--some may not be. But we, as a nation have the right to demand this of our politicians---as you do to demand ot of yours. The present manner of science funding in the USA goes back ultimately to the days of Vannevar Bush and the Second World War. Perhaps after 80+ years that model might stand some improvement? IN any event such a drastic restructuring of government happens rarely maybe every 80-100 years. For the closest equivalent we must look back to the Second World War and Depression era. That model is now a bit shopworn after circa 9 decades. Something had to be done---before the wheels totally come off. This will affect international affairs and international scientific co-operation in the short term, and of course that cab be disruptive. But not responding to the frustrations of the people can also be extremely disruptive. When one depends on Government subsidies---from the government of President Trump or that of Prime Minister Albanese, or anyone else some decisions will be made politically-- and may be disruptive. Hope we all come out of this better off. BTW---Now I will REALY not respond further on this thread. I think I have been clear on what my point is. To repeat further would take this exchange into the theater of the absurd. PEACE OUT, BRO
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
March 24, 2025 at 5:35 pm
What a lame response to my veracious replies.
It's quite ludicrous that you consider political situations can be reasonable and fair, yet disruptive enough to still to keep trust with your allies regardless of the consequences. Cutting the ground asunder just means you're utterly unreliable, and you're completely deluded to suppose that somehow in the end will all be happily going back to the way things were. Nothing happened here, eh? Trust is earned and it's not so easy to get back.
As I pointed out, scientific research is done between the USA and Australia mostly on a 50-50 basis, and we do so because we are reliable and stable democracies. Both countries benefit.
But now you're draconian Administration engages in foreign interference, sacrificing our universities and the research they do, more in the attempt to destroy their effectiveness - all apparently just to make 'America great again.' Even worst, it's seems it is legitimate and acceptable to treat foreign independent researchers as menial servants and expect them to comply with the dictates of another nation's Government.
Obsequious xenophobic sycophants - America - nah - not possible - far too absurd...
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
March 25, 2025 at 5:02 pm
To quote US Senator Warner, vice-chairman of a Congressional Committee of Intelligence, today said:
"Such decisions were damaging trust with allies such as the Five Eyes nations, [The Fives Eyes is comprised of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK and the US.] Things like the Five Eyes are based on trust built on decades, but so often that trust is now breaking literally overnight,"
Kind of proves my point...
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.